Posted January 24, 2013
I'll take your word for it, but it looks weird for a western.
keeveek: Tarantino movies are silly? Man, you should get the idea after Vega being shot while taking a shit over a decade ago. Maybe my wording didn't convey what I meant, so allow me to re-phrase: Not clever, delightfully absurd or funny. Just grotesque.
AndrewC: The over the top blood fountains make it easier for the viewer to accept it for what it is (a fun 21st century revenge fantasy), Maybe it's just not my cup of tea then.
AndrewC: You need to remember though that Snowball was the one who was seen most abusing Django's wife. He was the one that put her in the box, he was the one that was actively against letting her go, he was the actual evil to her, more so than Candy and the rest of the gang; and the fact that he was black was just adding more insult to injury. So no, I don't think the way he handled him was over the top, not one bit. Ok, so if you want to go with poetic justice: maybe sell him as a slave to the mines as he was about to do with Django.
Leaving him to blow up in the house still felt more like the director wanting a classic "let's kill the villain in a giant explosion" ending.
Let's agree to disagree on this one.
Pemptus: Tarantino films are all about style and playing with filmmaking conventions. Spaghetti Westerns of old were pretty damn gory, and Django honors them, in a Tarantinoesque way, by making the bullet splatters about 100x more grotesque. Yeah, it was probably Tarantino exaggerating spaghetti western violence to put an emphasis on it (ie, "you don't think spaghetti western violence was a bit ridiculous, here it is magnified several times"), like he does with many other things, but I find it transformed a pretty clever movie into a movie that has a lot of clever bits and some pretty mindless carnage.
Zolgar: There were some major.. not so much holes in the plot, but points where you're sitting there going "Why the fuck did you do it that way." they probably could have gotten Django's wife if they had offered a high sum of money for her up front.. using a similar reasoning to the one why Schultz was asking after her. "She used to belong to a friend of mine, and I greatly enjoyed her company when I would go to visit- it was a pity he didn't offer her for sale to me first.. I would have paid much higher than you did." .. a slave is an investment, especially something like a "comfort girl".. usually it's in how much benefit they will give before they become useless... well, if you paid $300 for something that you knew would become useless down the line so you couldn't even resell it.. and someone came along and offered you enough money to buy 5-10 more for just the one.. wouldn't you take it? After all, what does it really cost you? A bit of your time?
.... but then there wouldn't have been the satisfying bloodbath, because the slavers would have won. >.> Ah, but here was the clever part: He never intended to pay Candy the 12 thousands.
He just wanted the 12 thousands offer to put Candy in a receptive mood so that he'd be more receptive to a far less significant 500 dollars side deal for Django's wife.
Of course, he would have purchased Django's wife on the spot for 500 dollars, then would have left with a promise to return in 5 days with a physician to complete the 12 thousand dollars purchase, but he wouldn't have returned.
Leaving him to blow up in the house still felt more like the director wanting a classic "let's kill the villain in a giant explosion" ending.
Let's agree to disagree on this one.
.... but then there wouldn't have been the satisfying bloodbath, because the slavers would have won. >.>
He just wanted the 12 thousands offer to put Candy in a receptive mood so that he'd be more receptive to a far less significant 500 dollars side deal for Django's wife.
Of course, he would have purchased Django's wife on the spot for 500 dollars, then would have left with a promise to return in 5 days with a physician to complete the 12 thousand dollars purchase, but he wouldn't have returned.
